Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Veeraj Hotel And Restaurant ... vs Indian Bank on 8 August, 2023
MANPREET SINGH
2023.08.16 17:07
CWP-16057-2022 2023: PHHC:102378-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(226) CWP-16057-2022
Date of Decision: 08.08.2023
M/s Veeraj Hotel and Restaurant and ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Indian Bank ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Raghav Garg, Advocate for
Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate
for respondent-Bank.
ok 36 ok
LISA GILL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing notice dated
14.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent under Section 13 (2) of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act'), possession notice
dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Section 13(4) and intended sale notice
dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-3) under the SARFAESI Act.
2. Notice of motion was issued on 26.07.2022 in this writ petition.
It was directed that though sale of the secured asset proposed to be held on
26.07.2022 would go on but subject to petitioners depositing a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- with the respondent-Bank within two months the same will not
be confirmed. It was further directed that in default of compliance of the
above said order, same shall stand vacated automatically.
3. Learned counsel for respondent points out that amount in
question was not deposited by the petitioners within the stipulated period.
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
MANPREET SINGH
2023.08.16 17:07
| attest to the accuracy and
CWP-16057-2022 2023: PHHC:102378-DB
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact a sum of
Rs.15,50,000/- has been deposited though on 21.07.2023.
4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent at this
stage that apart from the said amount being deposited at this belated stage just
before hearing of this writ petition, the same has been deposited cleverly in
the petitioners saving account and not in the loan account with the respondent-
Bank.
5. Be that as it may, we do not find it appropriate to delve into the
merits of the matter keeping in view the fact that petitioners have an alternate
efficacious remedy for redressal of their grievance under the SARFAESI Acct.
Gainful reference in this regard can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others,
2010 (8) SCC 110, Varimadgugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu and
others, 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 34, M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. and others
vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and others, 2023 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 771, and
Division Bench judgment of this High Court in CWP No.10738 of 2022 (M/s.
Harinder Fabrics vs. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.) decided on
04.05.2023. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s South Indian
Bank (supra) held as under :-
13. ....... We may, however, reiterate the settled position
of law on the interference of the High Court
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious
alternative forum has been constituted through a statute.
14. A writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision
when the Court finds that the process does not conform to
the law or statute. In other words, courts are not expected
to substitute themselves with the decision-making
authority while finding fault with the process along with
the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be
authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-16057-2022
2023: PHHC:102378-DB
issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal is
constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and
law, including a statutory violation.
XXX XXX
15. The object and reasons behind the Act 54 of 2002
are very clear as observed by this Court in Mardia
Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311.
While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery
sans any interference from the Court, it does provide a fair
mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a
legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide
range of powers to set aside an illegal order, and thereafter,
grant consequential reliefs, including re-possession and
payment of compensation and costs. Section 17(1) of the
SARFAESI Act gives an expansive meaning to the
expression "any person", who could approach the Tribunal.
XXX XXX
18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the
powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only
in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to
proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more
so in commercial matters involving a lender and a
borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific
mechanism for appropriate redressal."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point any
exceptional or extra ordinary circumstance which calls for interference by this
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
7. In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the
petitioners to avail alternate remedy/remedies available to them in accordance
with law.
MANPREET SINGH
2023.08.16 17:07
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-16057-2022 2023: PHHC:102378-DB
8. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits
of the case.
9. Pending miscellaneous application, is any, stand disposed of.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
August 08, 2023
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
MANPREET SINGH
2023.08.16 17:07
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
